1. Why did Carmel ban pickleball at Forest Hill Park?

The Carmel City Council voted to permanently ban pickleball after residents said the sound of paddles hitting balls echoed through their neighborhoods. Complaints focused on the “popping” noise, which disrupted the peace, particularly in this quiet, wealthy oceanfront community. 

2. How have residents reacted to the ban?

Some residents praised the ban, saying the temporary restriction had made the area more peaceful. Others, particularly competitive pickleball players, argued that quieter equipment could have been a fair compromise to allow the sport without disturbing neighbors. 

3. Why was the compromise rejected?

 The council initially considered requiring "soft paddles and balls" to reduce noise. However, residents and council members argued this would be impossible to enforce. Resident Kimberly Edwards noted there is no parks and recreation department to supervise the courts, asking, "Is a police officer going to have to be... sitting there on these courts?" 

4. How did the temporary ban affect the neighborhood?

 During a temporary ban put in place last month, residents reported a significant improvement in their quality of life. Residents told the council that the neighborhood had become "peaceful and quiet" again, with some noting an "uptick in tennis players" using the courts instead of pickleballers.

5. Is the ban effective immediately?

The city is currently drafting an ordinance to make the ban permanent. While the council has sided with the ban, opponents will have two more hearings to appeal the decision once the ordinance is created. Mayor Dale Byrne admitted it is "really sad we can’t figure this out" but agreed that enforcement of a compromise was unrealistic.

 This ban sets a potential precedent for how wealthy communities manage the friction between recreational trends and residential tranquility. By prioritizing noise complaints over compromise, Carmel highlights the growing infrastructure challenges posed by the sport's rapid rise. The decision underscores the difficulty of enforcing complex rules in unsupervised public spaces.